New WWII movies coming!

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:46:09 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

Its always amazed me that Hollywood hasnt picked up the
part played by US pilots in bomber command. Two of the
pilots in the dambuster raid were American, Dinghy Young
and Joe McCarthy.

Nothing amazing about it - Americans are seldom portayed in a
subordinate role in another nation's war effort. If they're
portrayed, they are required to play a more substantial institutional
or leadership role. A film showing the heroism of Americans as
components of an RAF unit, almost indistinguishably from Canadians,
does not fit the presumptive requirements.

Shame, though, as there were plenty of Americans serving in
Commonwealth forces outside the Eagle Squadrons, and they could do
with some celebration as much as anyone else.

Gavin Bailey

--

Apply three phase AC 415V direct to MB. This work real good. How you know, you
ask? Simple, chip get real HOT. System not work, but no can tell from this.
Exactly same as before. Do it now. - Bart Kwan En

Presidente Alcazar wrote:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:46:09 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

Its always amazed me that Hollywood hasnt picked up the
part played by US pilots in bomber command. Two of the
pilots in the dambuster raid were American, Dinghy Young
and Joe McCarthy.

Nothing amazing about it - Americans are seldom portayed in a
subordinate role in another nation's war effort. If they're
portrayed, they are required to play a more substantial institutional
or leadership role. A film showing the heroism of Americans as
components of an RAF unit, almost indistinguishably from Canadians,
does not fit the presumptive requirements.

Shame, though, as there were plenty of Americans serving in
Commonwealth forces outside the Eagle Squadrons, and they could do
with some celebration as much as anyone else.

We did get a nice supporting part in "A Piece of Cake,', but then that WAS a British
production.

Guy

Guy Alcala wrote:
Presidente Alcazar wrote:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:46:09 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

[Snipped]

Americans are seldom portayed in a
subordinate role in another nation's war effort. If they're
portrayed, they are required to play a more substantial institutional
or leadership role. A film showing the heroism of Americans as
components of an RAF unit, almost indistinguishably from Canadians,
does not fit the presumptive requirements.

Shame, though, as there were plenty of Americans serving in
Commonwealth forces outside the Eagle Squadrons, and they could do
with some celebration as much as anyone else.

We did get a nice supporting part in "A Piece of Cake,', but then
that WAS a British production.

And we got a return match in 1000 Plane Raid with an RAF pilot! ;-)

Shame about the suspicious spitfire cockpit canopy where the spitfire gets
very close to the B17 though.

Richard.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:43:35 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Nothing amazing about it - Americans are seldom portayed in a
subordinate role in another nation's war effort. If they're
portrayed, they are required to play a more substantial institutional
or leadership role. A film showing the heroism of Americans as
components of an RAF unit, almost indistinguishably from Canadians,
does not fit the presumptive requirements.

Shame, though, as there were plenty of Americans serving in
Commonwealth forces outside the Eagle Squadrons, and they could do
with some celebration as much as anyone else.

We did get a nice supporting part in "A Piece of Cake,', but then that WAS a British
production.

Take a close look at the American character in the original book;
that's a part which looks specifically crafted to hit all the buttons
I've described above, just like any other hackneyed Hollywood script.

At that point I have to say I chucked the book away. It's got to the
point where the understandable nationalist bias of Hollywood has
become unquestioningly dominant in other media which cringingly look
over their shoulders as potential Hollywood movie scripts, and as a
consequence no portrayal of Americans can be made which violates the
basic premises of American exceptionalism.

Gavin Bailey

--

Apply three phase AC 415V direct to MB. This work real good. How you know, you
ask? Simple, chip get real HOT. System not work, but no can tell from this.
Exactly same as before. Do it now. - Bart Kwan En

"Peter Kemp" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 09:21:46 GMT, "The Enlightenment"
wrote:

I don't see that anywhere that Spielberg give a "human heart" as you say
to
any German character in SPR (saving private ryan): He turns the main
German
character into a vile treacherous and dishonourable ogre as is to be
expected.

Ogre? He's shown as scared out of his wits, and then is picked up by
another German unit and continues fighting. He never gave his word
that he's find Alliedf troops, so where id he lose his honour?

As is usual Germans are shown as idiots that have 2/3rds of
their bodies hanging out of a 'crap' poorly simulated "tiger tank" ready
to
get shot up like idiots when in fact these tanks did NOT have peep holes
for
americans to stick thompson submachine guns into

What about the Drivers vision slot like at
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWtiger.htm ?

That is a very poor web site.

Just about all WWII tanks had bullet-proof glass in vision slits. In ' Armor
Battles Of The Waffen-SS' an account refers to glass having to be changed
due to numerous bullet hits rendering it opaque.

Spielberger's book 'Tiger' which has a good photo of the driver's position.
The glass is a solid block, bullet-proof and looks to be at least 2cm
thick.It is clamped into an internal frame for ease of changing if damaged.
That's the tiger I. The tiger II had an episcope/periscope.

Trying to take out a Tiger I with a .45 was pure, grade 'A' Hollywood BS.

The website also makes the statement that the tiger was not a succes because
it was not reliable. That is not true. Both marks of tiger particularly I
became reliable after initial modifications.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm
Numerous statements have been made that the Tiger II was too heavy, too big,
too slow, "a casemate", etc. One is left with the impression that it was
lucky to move at all. These banal generalities, stated as incontrovertible
facts, are never substantiated by actual specifications, test reports or
after-action accounts from the units that used the Tiger II. In spite of
these frequently repeated remarks, the capability of the Tiger II to
negotiate obstacles and cross terrain was equivalent to or better than most
German and allied tanks.

The Tiger II initially experienced numerous automotive problems which
required a continuous series of minor modifications to correct. These
problems can be traced to two main causes: leaking seals and gaskets and an
over taxed drive train originally designed for a 40 metric ton vehicle. The
problem of keeping a Tiger II in running condition was compounded by a
shortage of skilled drivers many of whom may have never experienced driving
any vehicle prior to entering the service. In addition they were provided
only limited driver's training, and then usually on a different type of
panzer, and received their own Tiger II usually within a few days before
being shipped to the front. But, with mature drivers, taking required
maintenance halts, and modification of key automotive components, the Tiger
II could be maintained in a satisfactory operational condition. Status
reports from the Western Front, dated March 1945, showed that the percentage
of Tigers operational at the Front was about equal to the PzKpfw IV and as
good as or better than the Panther.

http://64.26.50.215/armorsite/tiger1-02.htm
The 13.(Tiger) Kompanie, of Panzer Regiment Großdeutschland, reported on the
armor protection of the Tiger: "During a scouting patrol two Tigers
encountered about 20 Russian tanks on their front, while additional Russian
tanks attacked from behind. A battle developed in which the armor and
weapons of the Tiger were extraordinarily successful. Both Tigers were hit
(mainly by 76.2 mm armor-piercing shells) 10 or more times at ranges from
500 to 1,000 meters. The armor held up all around. Not a single round
penetrated through the armor. Also hits in the running gear, in which the
suspension arms were torn away, did not immobilize the Tiger. While 76.2 mm
anti-tank shells continuously struck outside the armor, on the inside,
undisturbed, the commander, gunner, and loader selected targets, aimed, and
fired. The end result was 10 enemy tanks knocked out by two Tigers within 15
minutes" (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat
Tactics; op. cit.).







, they opperated in pairs
and hosed of infantry of each other and had Grenade lauchers that fired
up
Grenades vertically to clear any infantry on or near the tanks. In 'Band
of
Brothers' they are just dumb targets.

On a narow street how can tanks be mutually supporting?

I am not a tanker but here is my guess. The lead tank is protected by the
rear tank. The rear tank is protected by the lead tanks mantlet gun by
radio and of course its own grenade lauchers.

Better hope the tiger runs o




That's what
the infantry was for. And don't forget the TIger was stripped of
attackers by the 20mm at one point.






No arguments about U-571 being a bag of pants though - worst film I
saw that year.

Peter Kemp

What about the Drivers vision slot like at
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWtiger.htm ?

That is a very poor web site.

Just about all WWII tanks had bullet-proof glass in vision slits. In ' Armor
Battles Of The Waffen-SS' an account refers to glass having to be changed
due to numerous bullet hits rendering it opaque.

Spielberger's book 'Tiger' which has a good photo of the driver's position.
The glass is a solid block, bullet-proof and looks to be at least 2cm
thick.It is clamped into an internal frame for ease of changing if damaged.
That's the tiger I. The tiger II had an episcope/periscope.

Trying to take out a Tiger I with a .45 was pure, grade 'A' Hollywood BS.


This site notes the inaccuracies of SPR in regard to the Tiger I scenes:
http://www.sproe.com/t/tiger-tank.html

Rob

Trying to take out a Tiger I with a .45 was pure, grade 'A' Hollywood BS.

From what I remember, Spielberg said that it was a play on the audience's
imagination--what actually took out the tank were the P51 Mustangs that flew
right over heard.

Presidente Alcazar wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:43:35 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Nothing amazing about it - Americans are seldom portayed in a
subordinate role in another nation's war effort. If they're
portrayed, they are required to play a more substantial institutional
or leadership role. A film showing the heroism of Americans as
components of an RAF unit, almost indistinguishably from Canadians,
does not fit the presumptive requirements.

Shame, though, as there were plenty of Americans serving in
Commonwealth forces outside the Eagle Squadrons, and they could do
with some celebration as much as anyone else.

We did get a nice supporting part in "A Piece of Cake,', but then that WAS a British
production.

Take a close look at the American character in the original book;
that's a part which looks specifically crafted to hit all the buttons
I've described above, just like any other hackneyed Hollywood script.

At that point I have to say I chucked the book away. It's got to the
point where the understandable nationalist bias of Hollywood has
become unquestioningly dominant in other media which cringingly look
over their shoulders as potential Hollywood movie scripts, and as a
consequence no portrayal of Americans can be made which violates the
basic premises of American exceptionalism.

Gavin Bailey



I gather Abu Ghraib the movie, has most of the blame shifted to a few
Baathist relics who sneaked up from the cellar to work their foul art.

In a rape room busting epic, the US blow the place to pieces and
rescue 'political prisoners' held in chains & women's lingerie against
their will.

The Americans are shocked to find that Abu Ghraib is the garrison home
of the dreaded 519th Military Intelligence Battalion.

The Ministry of Torture had flown them in from Taliban infested
Afghanistan a few days earlier to torture children in front of their
mothers.

The Americans are awarded the UNICEF medal.

"Hans-Joachim Maximilian" wrote in
message om...
Presidente Alcazar wrote in
message . ..
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:43:35 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Nothing amazing about it - Americans are seldom portayed in a
subordinate role in another nation's war effort. If they're
portrayed, they are required to play a more substantial institutional
or leadership role. A film showing the heroism of Americans as
components of an RAF unit, almost indistinguishably from Canadians,
does not fit the presumptive requirements.

Shame, though, as there were plenty of Americans serving in
Commonwealth forces outside the Eagle Squadrons, and they could do
with some celebration as much as anyone else.

We did get a nice supporting part in "A Piece of Cake,', but then that
WAS a British
production.

Take a close look at the American character in the original book;
that's a part which looks specifically crafted to hit all the buttons
I've described above, just like any other hackneyed Hollywood script.

At that point I have to say I chucked the book away. It's got to the
point where the understandable nationalist bias of Hollywood has
become unquestioningly dominant in other media which cringingly look
over their shoulders as potential Hollywood movie scripts, and as a
consequence no portrayal of Americans can be made which violates the
basic premises of American exceptionalism.

Gavin Bailey



I gather Abu Ghraib the movie, has most of the blame shifted to a few
Baathist relics who sneaked up from the cellar to work their foul art.

In a rape room busting epic, the US blow the place to pieces and
rescue 'political prisoners' held in chains & women's lingerie against
their will.

The Americans are shocked to find that Abu Ghraib is the garrison home
of the dreaded 519th Military Intelligence Battalion.

The Ministry of Torture had flown them in from Taliban infested
Afghanistan a few days earlier to torture children in front of their
mothers.

The Americans are awarded the UNICEF medal.

LOL

John